Des Moines Area Community College Workforce Training Academy Connect Program: Implementation and Early Impact Report. OPRE Report No. 2018-82
Hamadyk, Jill; Zeidenberg, Matthew (2018). Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED618157
-
examining743Students, gradePS
Publication
Review Details
Reviewed: August 2020
- Publication (findings for Adult Education)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Working in a job paying $12/hour or more |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
18 Months |
Full sample;
|
23.27 |
22.53 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Working in a job requiring at least mid-level skills |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
18 Months |
Full sample;
|
10.08 |
7.51 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Received an occupational or educational credential from any source |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
18 Months |
Full sample;
|
20.38 |
14.40 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Received a credential from a licensing/certification body |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
18 Months |
Full sample;
|
16.58 |
10.40 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Received a credential from a college |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
18 Months |
Full sample;
|
8.42 |
5.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Received a credential from a non-college education or training institution |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
18 Months |
Full sample;
|
2.45 |
4.53 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Hours of college occuptional training |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
18 Months |
Full sample;
|
70.10 |
48.34 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Hours of college occupational training at college |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
18 Months |
Full sample;
|
54.77 |
37.79 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Hours of college occupational training at a place other than college |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
18 Months |
Full sample;
|
14.99 |
10.41 |
No |
-- | ||
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 63%
Male: 37% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Iowa
-
Race Black 47% Other or unknown 19% White 34% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 15% Not Hispanic or Latino 85%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in a community college in the Midwest.
Study sample
The initial sample consisted of 943 learners. These learners had math and reading skills between the 6th and 8th grade level. Sixty-three percent of learners were female. Thirty-four percent were White non-Hispanic, 47 percent were Black non-Hispanic, and 15 percent were Hispanic. Fourteen percent of learners were age 20 or younger, 16 percent were ages 21 to 24, 28 percent were ages 25 to 34, and 42 percent were age 35 or older. Forty percent had less than a high school degree, and 37 percent had a high school diploma or the equivalent. Learners reported an average income at the start of the study of $16,364. On measures of socioeconomic status, 66 percent reported receiving benefits from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); 14 percent reported receiving public assistance or welfare; and 63 percent reported experiencing financial hardship.
Intervention Group
Workforce Training Academy Connect (WTA Connect) gives low-skill learners an opportunity to enroll in occupational certificate courses that they would otherwise be ineligible to take. Learners had access to basic skills remediation through online courses, advisors who provided support during enrollment and monitored academic progress, and employment assistance resources upon completion of an occupational certificate course. Learners took the remediation and occupational training courses tuition-free and could receive transportation assistance and screening for public benefit eligibility.
Comparison Group
The comparison group continued to use existing education, training, and support services available in the community outside of the WTA Connect program. Additionally, learners could access training and services at the college or from other sources in the community. Some of these services, such as screening for benefits eligibility, were like services offered by WTA Connect.
Support for implementation
The study does not provide specific information about support for implementation.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Hamadyk, J., & Zeidenberg, M. (2018). Des Moines Area Community College Workforce Training Academy Connect Program: Implementation and early impact report (appendices) (OPRE Report No. 2018-82). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/images/opre/dmacc_implementation_and_early_impact_report_appendices_10_17_18.pdf.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).